On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:25:45AM -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Section 2.3 > > > > > > > > body: Information that was extracted from the body of the message. > > > > [...] > > > > interest. The "property" is an indication of where within the > > > > message body the extracted content was found, and can indicate an > > > > offset, identify a MIME part, etc. > > > > > > > > I'm not seeing where it's specified how the "property" gives an offset. > > > > I see other descriptions below about specific header fields and SMTP > > > > verbs and such, though. > > > > > > > > > That's text from the 2009 version of this work. Those were speculative > > at > > > the time and haven't yet materialized, at least not in standardized use. > > > > Are you proposing to leave the text unchanged regardless? > > > > I know the use case exists, because I wrote that text when I worked for a > company that was likely to make use of it, but it appears that hasn't > happened in the deployed universe. So now we have a registry entry for the > "body" ptype which isn't deprecated, but possibly no live uses of it. The > working group didn't discuss taking any action to either "fix" or bolster > this, as its focus was elsewhere (specifically the changes needed to > support the DMARC/ARC work). > > I'm inclined to leave it as-is, possibly with a remark capturing what I > just said here. If no uses of it appear before someone decides to revise > this again, we can formally deprecate it.
Okay. > > Section 3 > > > > > > > > of the validity of the connection's identity using DNS. It is > > > > incumbent upon an agent making use of the reported "iprev" result to > > > > understand what exactly that particular verifier is attempting to > > > > report. > > > > > > > > Does that in practice constrain "iprev" usage to within a single ADMD? > > > > > > > > > > I would imagine so. > > > > This is just the COMMENT section, so do what you will, but I would consider > > mentioning this property of "iprev" more explicitly. > > > > Actually, on second thought, it doesn't: ADMD #1 could attach an "iprev" > result that ADMD #2 could decide it trusts. That is, sort of, the ARC > model -- you decide whose external results you're going to believe. Part of that seems to be having a side agreement between ADMD #1 and ADMD #2 about the semantics in use in order for the trust to be meaningful. But I guess we don't need an IETF standard for that to be possible. > About to post the new version. Thanks. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
